Gujarat High Court

Vaghela Kiransinh Baldevsinh vs State Of Gujarat on 13 June, 2024

                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/13593/2022                               ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024

                                                                                   undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13593 of 2022
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16101 of 2022
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20865 of 2022
==========================================================
                  VAGHELA KIRANSINH BALDEVSINH & ORS.
                                 Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                             Date : 13/06/2024

                              ORAL ORDER

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda and the learned counsel Mr. H. S. Munshaw waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The present petitions are heard together as the issues raised in these matters are common. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present writ petitions are covered by various judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court, which are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and in one case, the Special Leave Petition preferred in the Hon'ble Apex Court has also been dismissed, thereby confirming the issue in question. He submits that the present writ petitioners are similarly placed and are entitled to similar benefits as have been granted by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2018 in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011. He submits that this Court has held that the writ petitioners

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13593/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024

undefined

therein are entitled to regular pay-scale on the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker from the original date of appointment and consequential benefits be also paid.

3. The learned AGP appearing for the respondents could not dispute the legal position as laid down in various judgments passed by this Court in respect of Multi-purpose Health Workers, whereby such benefits have been granted to them who are engaged by various District Panchayats in the State of Gujarat.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2022 in Special Civil Application No.6707 of 2020 with Special Civil Application No.8049 of 2022 has observed in paragraph '4' as under :-

"4. This court vide order dated 25.07.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 in case of employees like the petitioners who prayed for a direction to regularize their services and treat them at par with similarly situated persons and grant them regularization from the date of their initial appointments as Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) with consequential and incidental benefits held as under:

7. It is admitted that initially, petitioners were given contractual appointment for 11 months and thereafter, they have been continued for all these years. Some of these petitioners have joined way back in the year 2004 and 2005 and working on fixed remuneration of Rs.2500/-. The main ground of the respondents in denying the regular appointment to the petitioners and terminating their services is that initial appointment was on contractual basis.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13593/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024

undefined

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that such stand of the State Government in terminating the services of the petitioners, despite the fact that, petition of similarly situated other petitioners was allowed way back in the year 2011 and 2016. In these proceedings, respondents were party and decision was in the knowledge of the respondents. Case of the petitioners for increasing of remuneration from Rs.2500/- to Rs.9400/- was forwarded by Health and Family Welfare Department for consideration to the Finance Department. Finance Department in place of taking decision in favour of the employees have passed an order vide which the District Panchayats have been directed to terminate the services of the petitioners who have been working for considerable long time.

9. While disposing of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, this Court has held as under.

25. It may be true that in the case of District Rajkot, similarly situated MPHW(M) have been regularized by the concerned District Panchayat. However, it is obvious that in the case of Sabarkantha District Panchayat, the services of MPHW (M), who are identically situated to the petitioners, have been regularized, with restrospective effect, by the State Government, itself. The State Government has taken a policy decision in this regard, confined only to the MPHW (M) of Sabarkantha District. Why all similarly situated MPHW (M) in other Districts of the State have not been covered under a uniform policy, is certainly baffling. Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) such as petitioners, who were appointed on adhoc basis but have been denied the fruits of regular appointment only because the regular selection process was not fhled until they had crossed the permissible age-limit, from a distinct class of employees. Different categories in a single class cannot be carved out by taking piecemeal decisions benefiting only a section of such employees. This would amount to sub- classification that would not be permissible in law, as there is no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by confirming the decision only to MPHW (M) in Rajkot and Sabarkantha districts.

                   They,      therefore,    cannot     be     accorded





                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/13593/2022                               ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024

                                                                                   undefined




                        discriminatory    treatment.     The   respondent

authorities are not only trying to take advantage of the situation but are also trying to put the blame on each other which cannot be permitted, to the detriment of the petitioners.

10. From the aforementioned judgment, it is clear that Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) who have worked continuously for so many years cannot be discriminated by taking one excuse or the other. There is no rationale in discriminating the present petitioners by treating them as employees on contractual basis when initial contract for which they were appointed is over after 11 months and thereafter, without any break, they are continued for all these years. This is particularly so, when clear cut finding has been recorded by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 and respondents were party in these proceedings.

11. As a result of aforementioned discussion, termination order dated 6.1.2018 is quashed and set aside and this petition is allowed in the same terms as Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 decided on 10th August, 2016. Petitioners will be regularized in the same manner from the same date as in the aforementioned oral order. Rule is made absolute."

6. Further, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.102 of 2024 along with other connected matters has held as under :-

"3. We may further note that one of the matters decided vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2019 arising out of Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2019, relying upon the decision in the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, had been taken up for challenge by the State of Gujarat and others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.5663 of 2020. By the order dated 26.10.2020, the Apex Court has refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, which was the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13593/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024

undefined

basis of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2019 with allied matters vide judgment and order dated 06.10.2019 indicates that this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2016, had granted the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect, taking note of the fact that similar relief had been granted by the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the State Government in the case of similarly situated persons in Sabarkantha District.

4. Paragraph '35' of the judgment and order 10.08.2016 has been extracted in the order of the learned Single Judge. We may note that the issue decided before the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 was with regard to the grant of benefit of regularization of service to the Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) in District Panchayat, Junagadh, on the premise that similarly situated persons in Rajkot and Sabarkantha District Panchayats had been given the benefit of regularization of service from the date of their initial appointment as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), with all consequential and incidental benefits. It was noted by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision dated 10.08.2016 that the petitioners therein, who were working as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), District Panchayat, Junagadh, had worked continuously for more than 10 years, even before interim orders were passed in their favour to continue in service. It was opined that the petitioners therein ought to have been regularized as they have worked for several years. The action of the respondent District Panchayat in not issuing the advertisement for the regular selection procedure, especially after imposing a condition in the appointment order of the petitioners that they have to undergo the regular selection process, for years together until the petitioners crossed the permissible age limit, was highly unreasonable. The initiation of the selection process was not in the hands of the petitioners and they cannot be blamed for the plight in which they find themselves. It was noted that the petitioners had not been treated fairly, in as much as, they have been deprived of the fruits of the selection, for which they have been kept waiting till they crossed the permissible age limit. It was further noted in paragraph '34' of the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 that the State, which is supposed to be a model employer, has not adopted a uniform policy for the Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) covering the entire State of Gujarat and instead granted benefits only to the Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) in the Sabarkantha District by passing an order dated 13.10.2009. It was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13593/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024

undefined

required for the State to provide equal treatment to all similarly situated Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) throughout the State, irrespective of the District in which they were working.

5. In light of these findings, the Division Bench of this Court, while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2019 vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2019, noted that no material was placed before it to show that the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 (the above discussed judgment) has been set aside/modified/recalled.

6. We may further record that in another decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 decided vide judgment and order dated 25.07.2018, this Court while relying upon the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 granted the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect as was granted vide judgment and order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the State Government in the case of the similarly situated persons of Sabarkantha District. From the response of the District Panchayat and the State respondents filed before this Court in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011, it seems that the State and the District Panchayat had taken decisions selectively to grant the benefit to the similarly situated employees working as Multipurpose Health Worker in the State of Gujarat. In the affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the District Panchayat, Bhavnagar in one of the writ petitions, i. e. Special Civil Application No.2334 of 2021 decided vide common judgment and order dated 20.07.2022, subject matter of challenge herein, indicates that it was admitted therein that a large number of posts in the District Panchayat were lying vacant and the appointments against such posts were made for temporary/ad-hoc basis inspite of the recruitment rules for appointment against the regular permanent vacancy in the cadre of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) and Female Health Workers in Bhavnagar District..

7. In view of the aforesaid legal pronouncements, the present Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for their entitlement to regular pay-scale on the post of Multi-purpose Health Workers from their original date of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13593/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2024

undefined

appointment and consequential benefits which have been paid to the similarly situated employees namely petitioners of Special Civil Applications No. 12537 of 2011 and 2207 of 2014. The petitioners shall be granted such benefits within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this court.